In re: Gatewood Walden v. William Watkins
Filing
Opinion issued by court as to Petitioner Gatewood Walden. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.
Case: 17-11586
Date Filed: 10/04/2017
Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
__________________________
No. 17-11586
Non-Argument Calendar
__________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:13-mc-03643-WKW-CSC
In re: GATEWOOD WALDEN, Ex Parte,
Appellant.
__________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
__________________________
(October 4, 2017)
Before TJOFLAT, HULL, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Gatewood Walden, an attorney proceeding pro se, appeals the District
Court’s order disbarring him from practicing law in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division. On appeal, Walden
argues that the District Court abused its discretion by failing to find any Selling v.
Case: 17-11586
Date Filed: 10/04/2017
Page: 2 of 6
Radford infirmities during its intrinsic inquiry into the Alabama disciplinary
proceedings. 243 U.S. 46, 51 (1917).
We review district court disbarment orders for an abuse of discretion. In re
Calvo, 88 F.3d 962, 967 (11th Cir. 1996). There is an abuse of discretion if the
district court does not apply the correct legal standard or fails to follow proper
procedures. Johnson v. Breeden, 280 F.3d 1308, 1326 (11th Cir. 2002) (quotation
omitted).
While state court decisions receive high respect, federal disbarment does not
automatically result from state disbarment. Theard v. United States, 354 U.S. 278,
282 (1957). The attorney disbarred in state court must show good cause why the
district court should not also disbar him or her. Calvo, 88 F.3d at 967. A state
court disbarment should receive federal effect unless an “intrinsic consideration”
of the state record reveals at least one of the following conditions: (1) inadequate
due process from insufficient notice or an inadequate opportunity to be heard,1 (2)
the “infirmity of proof” in the state proceeding gives rise to a “clear conviction”
that the district court could not, consistently with its duty, accept the final
conclusion, or (3) “some other grave reason existed which should convince [the
district court] that to allow the natural consequences of the judgment to have their
effect would conflict with the duty which rests upon [the district court] not to
1
This Selling consideration narrowly defines due process as either a lack of notice or an
inadequate opportunity to be heard. See Calvo, 88 F.3d at 967.
2
Case: 17-11586
Date Filed: 10/04/2017
Page: 3 of 6
disbar except upon the conviction that, under the principles of right and justice, [it
was] constrained to do so.” Selling, 243 U.S. at 51. If the district court finds any
of these three considerations present, then the state disbarment should not lead to
federal disbarment.
District courts need not conduct a de novo trial over the attorney’s fitness to
practice law. Calvo, 88 F.3d at 967. However, they must determine whether the
record supporting the state disbarment reveals the infirmities identified in Selling.
But where a district court admits lawyers based on their state bar membership, the
district court may suspend the lawyer based on the state suspension—so long as an
intrinsic investigation does not uncover a Selling infirmity. Greer’s Refuse Serv.,
Inc. v. Browning-Ferris Indus. of Del., 843 F.2d 443, 446–47 (11th Cir. 1988).
In this case, the disbarment arose from violations of three Alabama Rules of
Professional Conduct: Rules 3.1(a), 8.4(a), 8.4(d). Under Rule 3.1(a), lawyers must
“not file a suit, assert a position, conduct a defense, delay a trial, or take other
action on behalf of [his or her] client when the lawyer knows or when it is obvious
that such action would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another.” Rule
8.4(a) states that lawyers commit professional misconduct by violating or
attempting to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, or by knowingly assisting
or inducing another to do so, or doing so through the acts of another. Lastly, Rule
3
Case: 17-11586
Date Filed: 10/04/2017
Page: 4 of 6
8.4(d) prohibits lawyers from engaging in conduct that prejudices the
administration of justice. Ala. R. Prof. C. 8.4(d).
Here, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in disbarring Walden. As
an initial matter, Walden was not entitled to a de novo trial on his fitness to
practice law. Calvo, 88 F.3d at 967. Since Walden’s membership in the Middle
District of Alabama Bar relied on his membership in the Alabama Bar, the District
Court could disbar him because of his state disbarment, so long as no Selling
infirmities were present in the Alabama proceedings. See Greer’s, 843 F.2d at
447. This means that the District Court only needed to examine the Alabama
proceedings for Selling infirmities. It did this.
The District Court did not abuse its discretion in determining that no Selling
infirmities existed. Under the first Selling prong, due process only includes notice
and the opportunity to be heard. Calvo, 88 F.3d at 967. Walden received notice of
the disciplinary action through the summons and formal charges, which included
references to specific rules and the specific conduct that led to the charges.
Walden also claimed that the Disciplinary Board violated his due process rights by
initially stating his suspension would last six months, and then disbarring him.
This claim fails because Walden was allowed to raise this argument before the
Alabama Supreme Court on appeal. 2 The State Bar also requested disbarment at
2
The Alabama Supreme Court ultimately affirmed his disbarment.
4
Case: 17-11586
Date Filed: 10/04/2017
Page: 5 of 6
the disciplinary hearing. Thus, even though the Disciplinary Board altered its
punishment, Walden had notice of possible disbarment and the opportunity to
argue against it.
Second, the State Bar sufficiently proved that Walden violated three
Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. For Rule 3.1(a), the State Bar presented
evidence that: (1) Walden was repeatedly sanctioned by the Autauga court and the
Alabama Supreme Court for raising meritless claims; (2) the Alabama Supreme
Court upheld the authority of the Autauga court to enjoin Willadean Walden and
Crooked Creek from filing further suits aimed at establishing their ownership of
the apartments; and (3) the federal district court and this Court determined that the
ownership of the apartments was resolved. This suffices to show that Walden’s
continued filings served to harass or maliciously injure the other parties. See Ala.
R. Prof. C. 3.1(a). For Rule 8.4(a), Walden admitted that he assisted another
lawyer in preparing a claim regarding the apartments, even though the Autauga
court found him in contempt and the Alabama Supreme Court definitively resolved
any claims about the apartments. This shows that Walden knowingly assisted
another lawyer in violating the Rules of Professional Conduct. As to Rule 8.4(d),
Walden admitted both that he advised his mother and that she could enter the
apartment property, in violation of the Autauga court’s order, and that the Autauga
5
Case: 17-11586
Date Filed: 10/04/2017
Page: 6 of 6
court held in contempt of court for doing so. This establishes that he engaged in
conduct that prejudiced the administration of justice. See Ala. R. Prof. C. 8.4(d).
Finally, Walden has not proffered a grave reason why state disbarment
should not lead to federal disbarment. Walden first claims that his continued
lawsuits over ownership of the apartments were meritorious. However, the
procedural history undermines this argument. It shows that both the Alabama
Supreme Court and the federal courts rejected Walden’s ownership claims several
times. Indeed, as the District Court noted, Walden’s disbarment resulted from his
inability to accept court orders adverse to his mother’s property interest in the
apartments.
Walden also argues that disbarment was disproportionate to his offenses.
However, in support of this, Walden only offers a previously clean record. His
actions in the present dispute warrant disbarment despite his previous record. He
intentionally disobeyed court orders, which resulted in contempt, and harassed
other parties and lawyers for other a decade, despite adverse decisions in both
federal and state court.
Therefore, because the state court record does not contain any Selling
infirmities, this Court affirms the District Court order disbarring Walden.
AFFIRMED.
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?